Postmortem reveals alarming extent of Vanessa’s injuries

A total of 23 injuries covered Vanessa van Rensburg’s body from head to toe.

From a punctured lung to a cracked rib, multiple fractures to the skull and even bruises on her hands, the extent and nature of the trauma suggest the 36-year-old woman endured a prolonged and brutal assault, culminating in a violent death.

According to the postmortem report which forms part of court records, her clothing and jewellery were still intact and there was no sign of sexual assault.

On Wednesday, murder accused Rob Evans’ bail application continued for its eighth day in the Humansdorp Regional Court.

Evans, who was in a relationship with Van Rensburg at the time, is accused of beating her to death at his Oyster Bay holiday home.

Her battered body was discovered on the living room floor on April 20.

During cross-examination of the lead investigator, Warrant Officer Xolile Kato, defence attorney Paul Roelofse grilled him on some of the statements he had made during his testimony-in-chief.

According to the postmortem conducted by forensic pathologist Dr Annemarie Mattheus, Van Rensburg was found fully clothed and still wearing her jewellery.

The examination of Van Rensburg’s head and neck revealed there were small abrasions, likened to scrapes, on the edges of both her nostrils.

Her skull, while intact, showed multiple injuries.

She had bruising and bleeding under the scalp, particularly over the back and side regions of her head.

There was also a haemorrhage in the lower part of her neck.

Her upper limbs showed a series of significant injuries, the report stated.

She also had injuries to her jaw and both wrists, her index and little finger.

On her right shoulder, multiple deep abrasions were present, varying in size.

Six small, round bruises were present on the inner side of her right upper arm, with a bruise located above her right elbow.

Her right upper thigh had two bruises, and the examination of her lower limbs revealed further trauma.

She also had injuries to her back and even her feet.

Internally, the postmortem revealed small bleeding spots in her eyes, known as petechial haemorrhages.

A broken rib was also discovered.

The primary cause of death was attributed to blunt force injuries to the chest and neck.

Roelofse turned the court’s attention to a broken bottle found at the scene — which the state alleged was the murder weapon.

Roelofse said no measurements were taken of the whisky bottle’s base, and that while the bottle was shown to the pathologist, she had not conclusively stated that it was indeed the weapon used.

“She did not say definitely that Vanessa was assaulted with a bottle,” Kato confirmed.

Roelofse asked if the grooves at the bottom of the bottle might have resembled bite marks — an assumption Kato initially made after inspecting Van Rensburg’s body at the crime scene.

“Looking at the wound, it appeared to be bite marks,” Kato said.

Asked on Wednesday whether the grooves in the bottle resembled teeth, Kato responded: “It does not look the same.”

Asked if he knew for a fact who had broken the bottle, Kato conceded that he did not know.

Kato said he had found fragments of glass in the dustbin but had no knowledge of who had disposed of them.

It is understood that Roelofse’s line of questioning was to challenge the state’s version that Evans had attempted to clean up the crime scene.

“He was the only person alive in that house,” Kato retorted.

The court heard further that on the day Van Rensburg’s body was found, Kato had already ruled out forced entry or a robbery.

Roelofse said Evans had been unable to enter the house after returning home from a braai that Saturday night, as Van Rensburg had arrived home before him.

He said the door was locked and even the couple’s friend, Mike McAfee, when he arrived to pick up his car which he had left outside Evans’ home, was unable to open the sliding door from the outside.

Roelofse continued to highlight alleged inconsistencies in the investigation, questioning whether Kato had taken any steps to verify if anyone else was present at the house at the time of Van Rensburg’s murder.

Kato responded that there was no indication of anyone else being there, apart from McAfee, who had briefly fetched his vehicle which was parked outside.

Kato also recounted a line from Evans’ statement given to the police on April 20 which stated: “I don’t know what happened to Vanessa. I do not recall having an argument with her. I was drunk and could not recall anything.”

Kato said he interpreted this as the accused being unable to remember the events of that night clearly.

Another point of contention was Kato’s decision to seize Evans’ cellphone despite the state denying earlier evidence that the Gqeberha businessman was told he was a suspect from the outset.

“Knowing the cellphone might assist, I took it. That is the purpose of an investigation,” Kato said.

But Roelofse accused Kato of targeting Evans early in the investigation, highlighting that no other cellphones were confiscated that day.

Roelofse asked: “You had enough evidence to ask for a warrant to search and take swabs from the accused?”

“Yes,” Kato responded.

Van Rensburg’s grieving family listened intently to the evidence from the public gallery on Wednesday.

They have attended court proceedings every day since the start of the bail application.

Her sister, Claudette, said they had no choice but to trust the process until they found closure and justice.

Two of Evans’ daughters, Justine and Morgan, were also in court on Wednesday. His youngest daughter is still in school.

Legal expert Ulrich Roux said in a matter such as this, where the accused faces a charge of premeditated murder, the court is at liberty to examine the merits of the case to determine whether bail should be granted.

“Bail can only be granted to a person facing a Schedule 6 offence if they demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying their release.

“In other words, if the case against them is very weak, that could qualify as an exceptional circumstance.”

He said despite bail applications being inherently urgent, there was no statutory time limit for evidence to be heard.

The matter continues on Thursday.

The Herald